Jurisdiction:

Advanced
Skip Page Header

McFarland v. State

  • Eyeglasses – Previously viewed in last 30 days for current Client ID
  • Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
  • September 25, 1996
  • 930 S.W.2d 99
  •  (Approx. 3 pages)

    930 S.W.2d 99
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

    Abe McFARLAND aka James “Jim” McFarland, Appellant,
    v.
    The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

    No. 954–95.
    Sept. 25, 1996.

    Synopsis

    Defendant was convicted in the 178th District Court, Harris County, William T. Harmon, J., of aggravated robbery and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, 902 S.W.2d 540, reversed and remanded, and State petitioned for discretionary review. The Court of Criminal Appeals, McCormick, P.J., held that Court of Appeals was required to address defendant's challenge to sufficiency of the evidence, even though it had sustained another point of error complaining of comments by prosecutor in presence of jury.
    Vacated and remanded.
    Overstreet, J., dissented.

    West Headnotes (2)West Headnotes

    1Criminal Law
    Display Key Number Topics
    Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
    Court of Appeals was required to address defendant's challenge to sufficiency of the evidence in aggravated robbery prosecution, even though it had sustained another point of error complaining of comments by prosecutor in presence of jury. Rules App.Proc., Rule 90(a).
    Key Number Symbol
    110Criminal Law
    110XXIVReview
    110XXIV(L)Scope of Review in General
    110XXIV(L)4Scope of Inquiry
    110k1134.49Evidence
    110k1134.49(7)Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
    (Formerly 110k1134(3))
    2Criminal Law
    Display Key Number Topics
    Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
    Appellate court must always addresses challenges to sufficiency of the evidence. Rules App.Proc., Rule 90(a).
    Key Number Symbol
    110Criminal Law
    110XXIVReview
    110XXIV(L)Scope of Review in General
    110XXIV(L)4Scope of Inquiry
    110k1134.49Evidence
    110k1134.49(7)Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
    (Formerly 110k1134(3))

    Attorneys and Law Firms

    *99 Pamela S. Berbyshire, Houston, for Appellant.
    Lester Blizzard, Assist. Dist. Atty., Houston, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.

    *100  OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.
    A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to seventy-five years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case after finding that the State's jury argument did not fall into one of the permissible categories of jury argument and that it denied the appellant the right to a fair and impartial trial. McFarland v. State, 902 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review.
    12 Upon further review of the Court of Appeals' decision, we determined that the court failed to address the appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and instead sustained the first point of error complaining of comments made by the prosecutor in the presence of the jury. An appellate court must always address challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 90(a); Garza v. State, 715 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). This Court has held that an appellate court must examine and decide a sufficiency challenge even if the conviction must be reversed on other grounds. Foster v. State, 635 S.W.2d 710, 717 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
    For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State's petition for discretionary review is dismissed without prejudice.
    OVERSTREET, J., dissents.
    WHITE, J., not participating.

    All Citations

    930 S.W.2d 99